February 15, 2017

Commissioner DeAnda

motioned to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Ms. Beeman

stated February 22 and 23rd they will have FEMA open house for the public and realtors

Commissioner Hafen

will be abstaining from Item #8, his family is the property owner for the application.

Commissioner Hafen

turned the meeting over to Commissioner Adams, he will be abstaining from the item. Steve Osborne reviewed his staff report and stated we received 4 letters of opposition on the application. Megan Ramos, applicant stated she read the objections in the back up and would like to hear from the public on their concerns.

Ms. Ramos

stated this is the only location available, the location of the sign is over 1,000 feet past the turn off to Roger’s Estates. They feel there is a limited amount of risk due to the fact the distance of the sign is quite a ways away from the Osky turnoff. Page 2 of 17

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification that heading into Pahrump it is 1000 feet past the intersection.

Commissioner Adams

asked Mr. Hohl if this would impede them from seeing traffic approaching in order to make your turn in either direction.

Mr. Hohl

stated 1000 feet happens quickly when you are traveling 85 mph. The intentions of a billboard is to allow people to read it.

Ms. Ramos

stated that this isn’t a billboard, this is an off premise sign and much smaller than a billboard, it would be very difficult to see if from the intersection much less see the sign. Jack Hey we need to look at the aesthetics of the valley, they should use the existing billboards and Beazer Homes shouldn’t be using signs to direct people to their development with the technology out now it shouldn’t be needed. Gary Thomas asked if they have a sign just past Manse how long will this sign be allowed to stay up.

Ms. Ramos

stated their previous application was given a 2 year time limit. This is the only location that is south of Manse, there are no existing billboards available south of Manse where they would need to turn.

Mr. Thomas

is concerned it will be there for 20 years.

Commissioner Adams

stated a special condition can be added for an expiration. Rich Walsh stated if the sign is 1000 feet away it goes by quickly and wants the board to really consider the location of the sign.

Ms. Ramos

stated they would be willing to change the sign to a single faced sign facing south, and information would only be received by traffic coming in from Las Vegas.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Lacy if the area is planned for a four lane development by DOT in the future.

Mr. Lacy

stated it is on their long term plan, they gave the County a presentation a few months ago, and it is on their 2019-18 schedule. He believes it is being planned for but no necessary funded yet.

Commissioner DeAnda

would like to see this come back in 18 months.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to approve CU-2016-000030 subject to all of the special conditions of approval, adding #6 that the sign be single faced facing incoming traffic from the South, and # 7 for a time period of 18 months at which time the sign would have to be removed. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for the record Commissioner Oscarson is present.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to approve PM-2016-000024 subject to all conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and stated in 2000 the home was built over the lot lines, this is a condition of a mortgage of the property to combine them.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve PM-2017-000025 subject to the conditions and based on the findings by staff. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and stated there have been no letters in opposition received. Gerald Farler applicant stated the property owner has given him permission to have bees on the property. He currently has one hive on the property. The hive is amongst salt cedars and walled off with pallets to block the wind. This causes them to explore a higher path when leaving the hive.

Commissioner Clark

asked how many hives the applicant anticipates having.

Mr. Farler

stated he will have at the most 3 or 4 hives. He isn’t doing this for a business, just as a hobby.

Commissioner Clark

asked if the applicant has read and understood the special conditions of approval.

Mr. Farler

stated he isn’t sure what he is asking.

Commissioner Clark

reviewed the conditions on page 5.

Mr. Farler

stated he has read those. He has submitted the application for the State and does have water available for the bees.

Commissioner Clark

asked if he anticipated every turning this into a home based business.

Mr. Farler

stated no, this is just a hobby.

Commissioner Adams

stated he sees where there is a registration that is required.

Mr. Farler

stated the application he found said voluntary, but will send out the other application as well.

Commissioner Adams

asked if he would agree to a special condition added that states he will register with the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Farler

stated yes, he would agree to that.

Commissioner Adams

asked what experience he has with licensing.

Mr. Farler

stated this is the first hive he has owned, growing up he worked on a farm that had close to 30 hives and he would help tend to the hives.

Commissioner Adams

asked if there was liability insurance required.

Mr. Farler

stated none that he is aware of.

Commissioner Adams

asked if he would be moving the hives to the center of the property. Page 5 of 17

Mr. Farler

stated no, he would be willing to move the hive to another location if someone moves into the property next door.

Commissioner Hafen

stated by agreeing to the special conditions of approval you have agreed to the setback requirements as part of the generally accepted agriculture management practices.

Mr. Farler

stated he will further investigate that.

Commissioner Clark

asked if Mr. Farler would be amenable to an added special condition that this not become a home based business.

Mr. McKee

stated Public Works comment request to request a dedication the Eastern 30 feet ROW on Happy Lane was not in the back up.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Farler if he would be amendable to adding a special condition to dedicate 30 feet of ROW on Happy Lane. He has been given permission by the property to speak on behalf of the property owner as stated on the record.

Ms. Beeman

stated that was for beekeeping, she isn’t sure Mr. Farler has that authority.

Mr. Farler

stated he and Mr. Delgadillo are business partners and he is in the process of buying the property.

Mr. Sutton

stated that can be remedied easily by asking the property owner to submit a letter stating he is okay with it.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they can add as a special condition, if the current property owner isn’t okay with the condition, then the CUP goes away.

Commissioner Koenig

asked that if there is a motion to approve, that it be contingent on the property taxes being paid.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if Mr. Farler is amendable to those additional special conditions.

Mr. Farler

stated yes, he was unaware they weren’t paid.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification on the ROW dedication.

Mr. McKee

stated for further alignment with Happy Lane the northbound property there is currently no offer of dedication on this property.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve based on findings and conditions of approval, adding state registration with the department of agriculture, setbacks 100 feet from all property lines, there be an offer of dedication of 30 feet fronting the eastern property line on Happy Lane, taxes to be paid, this shall not a home based business. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the staff report, all the surrounding properties are owned by the applicant. They are in the process of doing a lot merger of all the lots. Staff is recommending approval of the application.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like to add a condition that this is conditioned upon the lot merger moving forward or that all lots have legal access.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if Public Works was in agreement with the application.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve AB-2016-000004 based on findings and adding special condition #6 that the approval is conditioned upon the lot merger being completed or all lots have legal access if the merger doesn’t happen. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification the definition of livestock.

Mr. Osborne

stated livestock is the keeping of farm animals.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the BOCC regionally adopted the definition.

Mr. Sutton

stated it is also defined under Title 17.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification if the list is meant to be all inclusive or descriptive.

Commissioner Hafen

stated this isn’t specific to any general parcel, this is for the entire PRPD area and just updating the Masterplan. Ammie Nelson stated her sister has miniature horses as pets. People that have special need animals like a goat as a service animal, will this hinder them. John Fesnock spoke in favor of the amendment.

Commissioner Hafen

stated this is only allowing an additional category, SE which is similar to RE-1, and allowing it into the RDR designation. This will allow additional uses in the RDR category.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification if this will allow livestock to a permissive use.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we are allowing the SE zoning into the RDR category.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to recommend MP-2017-000002 to the BOCC based upon staff’s findings. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Sutton

stated this will have to pass with a super majority vote.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report, stating there were several letters of opposition, only one letter is a property owner within the 26 parcels. The others are within the notification area.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we may need to add a condition to the zone change based on finding #1. Stating as long as the recommended Masterplan language is approved by the BOCC.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Osborne to review the Grandfather Clause within NCC.

Mr. Osborne

stated if the rezoning is approved and all the parcels become SE anyone that has existing or current use of the property with livestock there would be able to continue that use. Vacant lots wouldn’t be allowed to have farm animals. Anyone that has the existing use and discontinue the use for more than 6 months they would lose their grandfather status.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification if livestock passes they can replace that one as long as there was no lapse of 6 months.

Mr. Lacy

stated they wouldn’t be able to expand the number, they would be allowed to continue at the level they are currently at.

Commissioner Carr

asked if they could change from cows to horses or horses to pigs.

Mr. Sutton

stated it is still livestock, if they have a horse and they want to switch to a cow it is still livestock.

Commissioner Hafen

stated their property isn’t included in the zone change and will not be affected in the zone change and you will be able to keep your horses and won’t lose that. Traci Hill stated she supports the ZC and asks for the RPC to recommend approval. Michael Juarez stated he supports the ZC and asks for recommendation of approval. Diane Synder stated she lives in the area, and supports the ZC request. Brian LaCoursiere stated he lives within 300 feet and is against the ZC, he is concerned that the request will eventually expand out to his property. He stated in the SE zoning district it clearly states a zone designation may only be applied for by property owners of 40 acres or more. This is going against NCC.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification on comments made during public comment equestrian trails were brought up. If there are any easements in front of behind the property and recorded against the property it isn’t going to be addressed here. Another comment that was made during public comment was stated if there was a property that had animals and it was to sell those animals would have to go away. That is not the case. If the property is sold or transferred the animals and the existing number of animals can remain. They couldn’t increase the number but if the ownership transfers the animals are allowed.

Commissioner Hafen

stated a larger area of parcels were brought before this board previously and the board decided not to take action because there was owners in those area that wanted to keep their horses and were concerned. This is now being brought to us based on a signed petition of 25 property owners wanting the change.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification on the initial additional condition brought up at the beginning of the meeting.

Commissioner Hafen

stated finding #1 needs to be addressed as the current zone change isn’t in conformance with the Master Plan. This zone change needs to be conditioned upon the approval of the MP amendment.

Commissioner Clark

stated it was mentioned in public comment that due to illness they may lose their grandfathering status.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we aren’t here to address the Grandfathering ordinance, however there have been people come forward to request a reinstatement of a grandfathered use. If they do lose their grandfathering the RPC can reinstate their grandfathering.

Commissioner Clark

asked if we can condition a grandfathered use that it will begin subsequent to someone recovering from an illness.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they would have to agendize the Grandfathered Clause language and cannot address that tonight. Page 10 of 17

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to recommend approval of ZC-2016-000011 to the BOCC adding an additional condition to address finding #1 that this approval is contingent upon the Masterplan amendment passing. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report. Applicant wants to install and operate an asphalt plant in an existing gravel pit. Nye County code requires an asphalt plant to be in a heavy industrial and requires a CUP. The Masterplan amendment is because HI requires the land use designation of Rural Industrial Area. Public Works is requesting a ROW dedication. If the asphalt plant operates past December 31, 2017 or any new industrial development occurs the applicant has to submit a Water Impact Plan for each of those uses including the asphalt plant and those require approval of the Water District. On the CUP staff suggests if the asphalt plant continues past December 31, 2017 the applicant must submit for a site development plan, if it ceases to operate before December 31, 2017 the CUP shall become void.

Commissioner Hafen

stated condition #1 for the CUP would require a site development plan and paved access would be addressed. Is that not a requirement at this time, only after December 31, 2017?

Mr. Osborne

stated correct. Commissioner asked for clarification that paving would be required after December 31 st as a requirement of the site development. Page 11 of 17

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification on what a Water Impact Plan is.

Mr. Lacy

stated the water impact plan sets the total water usage, waste water disposal or any potential contaminates. There is a Community Source Water Protection Plan that identified public water systems and their potential capture areas for those and recommendations for best management practices.

Commissioner Clark

asked if this property is anywhere near a location where it could possibly…

Mr. Lacy

stated the backup states this isn’t within a capture area of a well but a mile or more upstream from a well. Ron Murphy, applicant stated everything is covered.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the applicant is okay with the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to recommend approval to the BOCC MP-2017-000003, ZC-2017-000012 and CU-2017-000035 based on staff findings, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Mr. Lacy

stated this has been discussed for several years with the GWMP, the Masterplan and the BOCC. There is an ordinance for conservation measures within NCC this is an amendment to strengthen the conservation measures. This is designed to prospective to new development in the valley and not existing developed lots.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for example this would affect new homes being built, new development. An example is this would apply to Beazer Homes if adopted by the BOCC, new construction and new development only. Stating he attended the recent NCWD meeting and they reviewed this and thanked the RPC and staff for the hard work.

Ms. Beeman

stated this is the clean version of the ordinance the RPC saw in January. It went to the Water District and it is now back to the RPC for one last review before it goes to the BOCC.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification that this is for new construction under a Development Agreement or larger master planned development. Not every new single family development. Page 12 of 17

Mr. Lacy

stated this is for all new development. However the only time we would review plans for landscaping is on the Master planned development, Commercial and Industrial Development. Individual homes aren’t required to submit plans for review.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they would then be out of compliance. He was under the impression that this was for Master planned development not SFR’s.

Commissioner Hafen

stated parts of this are only for large developments, there is a requirement for a landscaping plan that falls into the larger development that doesn’t affect the home builders on smaller levels. There are other aspects of the plan they would be subject to like no turf in the front yard which is applicable to all new construction.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated it is hard to justify a contractor or owner builder to have to conform to some of these when this was targeted for the Masterplans. They contractors he has had contact him are concerned that we will be making them install landscaping.

Mr. Lacy

stated most small builders aren’t doing landscaping.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we aren’t asking them to do these things, we are asking them to not do things.

Commissioner Clark

stated the turf restrictions under F-1, it states 1500 sq. ft. of turf, he suggested zero sq. ft. He would like pop up sprinklers banned, and to make them all underground.

Commissioner Clark

asked how to get rid of the salt cedars.

Commissioner Hafen

stated it has been directed through the BOCC and NCWD as new development comes all salt cedars of any size must be removed prior to any new development.

Mr. Lacy

stated the Tri County weed control district has been in the area and helped with removal and it can take a few years. There is a protocol to get rid of them.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification will we hold developers up for 2 to 3 years to properly get rid of them.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is not the intentions but to have them stay on top of the removal. Individual homeowners will be responsible after the developer builds the home to remove them.

Commissioner Hafen

stated Ms. Nelson’s concerns are addressed where it states any new construction.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to recommend to the BOCC Bill 2017-06. Seconded by

Ms. Beeman

stated she has some corrections. Item 5A was a mistake and should not be stricken. Item #7 – it states merchandise shall not be displayed, there are several residential industries in town that do sculptures and they display them outside. It makes it difficult to store them. Item #9 under zoning administrator the last sentence should state “or other such similar durable and dust free surface.”

Mr. Lacy

stated we are here for discussion, this is one of the most common issue we see in the office. We might want to treat larger parcel differently than the smaller parcels. Current code has a one size fits all permissive uses, we could address it differently with a CUP they could do something outside this area. The RPC could look at it and determine what the character is of the neighborhood and what is appropriate for that piece of land.

Commissioner Clark

suggested for 5A for displaying of inventory etcetera is that they offer two routes for the applicant. We could delegate to Mr. Lacy the authority to make the decision of storage of inventory. Further from that the applicant could come to RPC for approval.

Commissioner Adams

stated asked about freight delivery and if there were deliveries that weren’t UPS or USPS.

Mr. Lacy

stated the current code has permissive uses, which don’t lead to discretion to himself or the RPC. If you meet these requirements you are allowed to do it. There are others that list at the administrator’s discretion. We need to find an appropriate way to word it.

Commissioner Hafen

stated under #7 his understanding is outdoor storage isn’t allowed in GC, NC or residential. You have to get into CM or industrial zones before you can store materials outside. He doesn’t feel it is appropriate to allow residential areas to store materials outside. We have Industrial zonings and CM categories for a reason, number 7 should stay as it is.

Commissioner Adams

stated based on the wording of #8 you wouldn’t be allowed to order furniture.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the intent is to not have 18 wheelers driving up and down the roads 3 times a day.

Ms. Beeman

stated Fed Ex and other express package delivery does have tractor trailers.

Mr. Lacy

stated it has a weight limit.

Ms. Beeman

stated they will take their comments and they can make the changes and bring it back at a later date.

Commissioner Hafen

suggested to the Commissioners to provide feedback to Ms. Beeman and this will be brought back at a later date. Page 14 of 17

Commissioner Oscarson

stated on C-1-3 detached accessory building not to exceed 50%. If someone is using it as a home based business why does it matter if they are using an accessory building 30 or 100%.

Ms. Beeman

stated in some residential districts we allow a 30,000 sq. ft. detached accessory building, which is quite large. If you are that big then you should be somewhere else.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated for #8 on deliveries it doesn’t make sense.

Commissioner Adams

suggested rewording on page 2 – Purpose, residential industry may be allowed rather than saying shall be allowed.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the board to email Ms. Beeman their suggested changes.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated they should get together with some home based business owners to see how this will affect them.

Mr. Lacy

stated if you want to ask him to speak with businesses he can.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he doesn’t want a subcommittee but stated if 2 commissioners at a time want to get together to discuss with staff to arrange it. Encourage business to meet and discuss at the same time.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated this substantially affects a lot of businesses.

Ms. Beeman

stated the Planning Department had been doing Maps of Reversion instead of Merger Resubdivision maps and that authority had been granted to staff to do them administratively. NRS states it has to be done one way, and the wording didn’t get adopted and handed over to the administrative officer.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated this is an important part of what they do and will ease some tension as the valley grows.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked Mr. Lacy if item #1 binds him in any way trying to get these done.

Mr. Lacy

stated one of the specific issues is that we might want to put a limit on the size. The one question is that a Merger Re-sub map could be complicated and large. Give him the authority to do something before it is combined into one, anything more complicated we can have for it to come back to this board. We could have a subdivision map with 500 homes in it that might not be something the RPC wants him to have authority to do.

Mr. Sutton

stated he isn’t sure that it is something Mr. Lacy could do, this is specific to merger resub parcel map, and a parcel map can only be a max of 4.

Mr. Lacy

clarified are there limits that they find appropriate for an administrative waiver.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification that it is 4 lots of any size. Page 15 of 17

Mr. Sutton

stated he doesn’t think the size is limited in the parcel map NRS, he believes it is the number of lots.

Ms. Beeman

stated maybe then it should be called a Merger Resubdivision and not define it as a Parcel Map.

Mr. Sutton

stated it would then trigger Mr. Lacy’s concerns then he would be dealing with 500 lots.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the board if they want to limit the acreage. Do we want people to combine 4 – 40 acre parcels without them coming to the board?

Mr. Lacy

stated if you do two lots with a maximum of 5 acres maximum you will get 90% if the cleanup.

Commissioner Hafen

stated anything less than 11 acres. Does this cover Commercial or just residential.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated it was intended for residential, let’s make commercial come back to the board.

Ms. Beeman

stated she will make the changes and bring it back to the March meeting.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to recommend approval of Bill 2017-08 to the BOCC limiting this to only residential lots, and limiting it to less than 11 acres. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for the nomination of a new secretary/clerk position placed on the next agenda. He would also like the PW comments added as an appendix to the items for future meetings.

Commissioner Koenig

would like staff to call a special meeting acting as CIPAC to review the CIP functions, review the charts, logic of where the money comes from and what it can be spent on done as a training session. He would like PW included also.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is a webinar on the 15th of March, do we want to include this in that time.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he would need an hour or two and stated the 22nd of March might work. Page 16 of 17

Commissioner Carr

won’t be available until April.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if march 22nd at 3:00 at the BOCC chambers pending availability.

Commissioner Clark

would like to review the Grandfathering section of NCC.

Commissioner Hafen

asked staff to bring it to the board for review and an overview of the history of the Grandfather clause and then they can discuss and after review if needed to give direction to staff they can.

Commissioner Koenig

stated to also include the reasoning for the Grandfathered clause.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for it to be brought back on the next meeting agenda if possible.